Two-level structured overlay design for cluster management in a peer-to-peer network

ABSTRACT

A method and system for designing file replication schemes in file sharing systems consider node storage constraints and node up/down statistics, file storage costs, and file transfer costs among the nodes, user request rates for the files, and user specified file availability requirements. Based on these considerations, a systematic method for designing file replication schemes can be implemented. The method first determines the number of copies of the files to be stored in the system to achieve the desired goal (e.g., to satisfy file availability requirements, or to maximize the system hit rate), and then selects the nodes at which to store the file copies to minimize the total expected cost. The file replication scheme for a peer-to-peer file sharing system in a distributed and adaptive manner can scale to a large number of nodes and files and can handle changes in the user request pattern over time.

PRIORITY INFORMATION

This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional PatentApplication Ser. No. 60/885,951, filed on Jan. 22, 2007. The entirecontent of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/885,951,filed on Jan. 22, 2007, is hereby incorporated by reference.

This application also claims priority from U.S. Provisional PatentApplication Ser. No. 60/908,569, filed on Mar. 28, 2007. The entirecontent of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/908,569,filed on Mar. 28, 2007, is hereby incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND

A network overlay is an abstraction of a physical network thatidentifies a subset of network nodes and maintains a set of logicallinks between them. The software that implements a network overlay mustmaintain node membership and communication, mapping the logical links toactual physical connections. In peer-to-peer overlays, all nodesparticipate in overlay management, maintaining a number of the logicallinks between them; structured peer-to-peer overlays in particular haveclearly defined and enforced link topologies and are often used tosupport distributed data structures, such as distributed hash tables. Anumber of structured overlay designs exist, of which the most citedinclude CHORD, CAN, Pastry, and Tapestry.

Following the concept of peer-to-peer, the overlays above have flatdesigns that do not distinguish differences between nodes or links. Inthe case of nodes, this is the ideal from the point of view of apeer-to-peer design, and is advantageous because distinguished orspecialized nodes are potential bottlenecks or singular points offailure.

However, since the realization of logical links depends on theunderlying physical connections between nodes, ignoring differencesbetween links can lead to poor performance. For example, two nodes thatare neighbors (share a link) in the overlay may in fact be separated bya large geographical distance and/or network hops.

Introducing a hierarchy into an overlay design is a way to incorporatethe differences between links. For example, nodes that are closeaccording to some locality metric can be grouped or clustered at a lowlevel so that interactions between local nodes do not leave the cluster.Clusters can then be linked at higher levels so that nodes in differentclusters can interact. It can be proven that a two-level overlay hasbetter average search times than a flat overlay, as follows.

Let the average communication latency between two nodes in the samecluster be t, and that between two nodes in different clusters be T,such that t<<T. Let f(x) be the average number of overlay hops toresolve a query in an overlay with x nodes. Assuming n nodes per clusterand k clusters (N=nk total nodes) and that all clusters are connected,the average search times in a one level and two level overlay areobtained as follows, given that the query can be resolved in only onecluster.

The probability that a hop is to a node on the same cluster is(n−1)/(nk−1)≈1/k , given that there are n nodes per cluster. Based onthis probability, the average hop latency (h) is the sum of the time foreach kind of hop, weighted by the probability of that hop, namely,h=(1/k)t+(1−1/k)T.

Thus, the average search latency for the overlay is given by the productof the average hop latency and the average number of hops per search,which in this case is in the full overlay of N nodes,

${h \cdot {f(N)}} = {\frac{t \cdot {f(N)}}{k} + {\frac{( {k - 1} ) \cdot T \cdot {f(N)}}{k}.}}$

A sequential search is where each cluster is queried until the requireddata is found. In this case, the probability that a query is resolved inthe j^(th) cluster is needed. Since for this analysis any cluster isequally likely to contain the result, this probability is 1/k. Now, thesearch latency if query resolved in j^(th) cluster (l_(j)) is given byj·t·f(n)+(j−1)T.

The above was obtained from j searches within local clusters and thelong distance jumps between them. Finally, the probability of eachlatency is used to obtain the average search latency

${( {1/k} ) \cdot {\sum\limits_{j}\; l_{j}}} = {\frac{{t( {k + 1} )} \cdot {f(n)}}{2} + {\frac{T( {k - 1} )}{2}.}}$

If the number of clusters k is constant, the search latency given by

${h \cdot {f(N)}} = {\frac{t \cdot {f(N)}}{k} + \frac{( {k - 1} ) \cdot T \cdot {f(N)}}{k}}$is dominated by the product of the large time T and the average searchtime for the total number of nodes N, whereas for

${( {1/k} ) \cdot {\sum\limits_{j}\; l_{j}}} = {\frac{{t( {k + 1} )} \cdot {f(n)}}{2} + \frac{T( {k - 1} )}{2}}$the term for T is linear and the search latency is dominated by thesearch time within clusters given by t·f(n).

The designs of most structured peer-to-peer overlays are flat and do notreflect the underlying physical or logical organization or grouping ofnodes. Ignoring this underlying infrastructure leads to inefficient orunwanted performance because there is no control over the communicationof nodes between different groups, which is considered to be moreexpensive than intra-group communication.

Hierarchical overlay designs incorporate this knowledge into the overlayby clustering nodes based on some locality metric and interconnectingclusters at a higher level. These hierarchical overlays have beenconstructed using specialized nodes from the lower level clusters, whichconnect to form the higher level overlay. Designs exist for hierarchicaloverlays that connect clusters without cluster heads, but theses designsstill use converging inter-cluster paths that are potential bottlenecksand do not fully exploit locality for inter-cluster searches.

The above analysis does not consider how clusters are interconnected.Most existing designs for hierarchical overlays use the concept ofcluster-head, so that one node or subset of nodes in each cluster areused to form the higher level overlay(s) that connect the lower levelclusters. Cluster-heads are not necessarily unique or static. Differenttechniques, such as voting, rotation, replication, etc., can be used tominimize the potential of the cluster-head as a bottleneck or singlepoint of failure.

For example, links between nodes in different clusters can beconstructed as if constructing a single layer cluster, but keepingintra-cluster and inter-cluster links separate and limiting the numberof inter-cluster links to bound the average number of links per node. Inthis example, the inter-cluster paths still converge so thatinter-cluster paths are potential bottlenecks.

It desirable to provide a two-level case that has less storage overheadwhile allowing all nodes access to remote clusters, and better exploitslocality for search optimization.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The drawings are only for purposes of illustrating various embodimentsand are not to be construed as limiting, wherein:

FIG. 1 illustrates a shaded node from cluster B performing a virtualjoin into cluster A;

FIG. 2 illustrates a “virtual ring” from the point of view of cluster A;

FIG. 3 illustrates how queries are propagated between clusters;

FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart for determining the number of index nodesneeded and how to locate these index nodes;

FIG. 5 graphically illustrates a system hit rate of different filereplication schemes; and

FIG. 6 graphically illustrates a cost of different file replicationschemes.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

For a general understanding, reference is made to the drawings. In thedrawings, like references have been used throughout to designateidentical or equivalent elements. It is also noted that the drawings maynot have been drawn to scale and that certain regions may have beenpurposely drawn disproportionately so that the features and conceptscould be properly illustrated.

The description of the following example will be explained in terms ofthe CHORD overlay. However, any structured overlay topology lends itselfto this construction. A CHORD overlay has a ring-based topology, whereevery node is randomly assigned an identifier in the range [0,2^(m)).Nodes are organized in order according to their identifier to form thering.

In a classical, single-level CHORD ring, a node joins by contacting anyother node already in the overlay, from which it obtains references toits successor and predecessor in the ring, as well as a number of extrareferences (chords or fingers) to allow for faster traversal of thering. References are kept in a data structure called a finger table.Successor and predecessor references are enough for successful routingin CHORD.

In this embodiment, a two-level overlay design, local clusters areorganized into independent CHORD rings. For each cluster, nodes' fingertables contain only local nodes. If a single identifier space is usedfor all nodes (that is, all nodes obtain their identifier in the samerange), any node in one cluster could also join any other of theexisting clusters.

However, instead of performing a regular join operation, a node cansimply query the remote cluster for its successor and predecessor inthat cluster. These inter-cluster operations are defined as virtualjoins, and the virtual joins differ from a normal CHORD join operationin two ways: (1) the structure of the cluster that handles the virtualjoin operation of an external node is not modified, and (2) the joiningnode only records references to two (successor and predecessor) nodes inthe remote cluster, and stores the two (successor and predecessor) nodesseparately from its own local finger table.

FIG. 1 illustrates a virtual join operation between two clusters. InFIG. 1, the shaded node from cluster B performs a virtual join intocluster A. Moreover, on FIG. 1, only successor-predecessor relationshipsare shown. When all external nodes have joined a particular cluster, thenew topology can be viewed as a virtual ring with different types ofconnections, as FIG. 2 illustrates.

As illustrated in FIG. 2, the “virtual ring” from the point of view ofcluster A. In FIG. 1, cluster A references are illustrated as solidblack lines, and cluster B references are illustrated as the dashedlines. The inter-cluster references from cluster B are illustrated asthe dashed arrows.

When a new node joins the system, the node will normally obtain itsidentifier and join its local cluster (clustering is a system specificissue, and must be defined beforehand, either by a system administratoror by some automated mechanism). The node will then perform virtualjoins with this same identifier in each of the other clusters that makeup the system (alternatively, these virtual joins can be executed onlywhen required). Like for normal CHORD joins, a virtual join onlyrequires knowledge of one existing node in each ring.

Each node will then store its own finger table as well as its successorsand predecessors in each of the remote clusters the node has virtuallyjoined. This embodiment assumes that the number of clusters is smallcompared to the number of nodes within each cluster and is relativelystable or static. In this way, the additional space needed for theexternal references will also be constant.

The result of this design is a fully connected higher level overlay atrelatively small cost, where any node can be used as a link betweenclusters. Thus, there are no specialized nodes or converging paths aspotential bottlenecks or single points of failure. Since thesuccessor-predecessor relationship is maintained for nodes betweenclusters, routing between clusters is expected to be better than theaverage case for the two-level overlay. This is because a query willalready be closer to the destination node when it enters the remotecluster than if an arbitrary node were used. This will be explained inmore detail below.

In CHORD, a query for a given identifier is routed to the closest nodegreater or equal to it. That is, a query for an identifier i is routedto the successor of i. If a query for i originates from a cluster thatdoes not contain i, it will be routed to the successor of i in thatcluster. This node is then responsible for forwarding the query(sequentially or in parallel, depending on the type of query) to otherclusters.

Since the node holds the link for its successor in the remote cluster,the node is expected that the remote node is the successor of i in thiscluster, or is at least close to it in the identifier space, as FIG. 3illustrates.

FIG. 3 illustrates how queries are propagated between clusters. Asillustrated in FIG. 3, the query for id 4 is routed to its successornode 5 in cluster A. If the query is not found there, the query isrouted to the successor for node 5 in cluster B, node 8, which in thiscase is also the successor of node 4, and could contain the result beingsought.

It is difficult to prove that the average search time in this case isbetter than the average search time if the query is initiated at anarbitrary node in the remote overlay. However, simulation can be used toestablish a difference between these two cases.

In CHORD, failures are recognized by periodically probing the entries ofthe finger table to find if the referenced nodes are still up, or ifothers have recently joined to take their place. CHORD has self-repairmechanisms that allow it to fix broken finger table entries by queriesto successive neighbors. Due to the high cost of inter-clustercommunication, periodically checking remote neighbors may not bereasonable.

Remote joins may affect the locality of queries and thus adverselyaffect their performance, but the queries can still be effectivelyrealized in this case. If the remote successor of a node has left theoverlay or failed, a node can alternatively use its remote predecessoror forward the query to any other local node that can relay the query tothe remote cluster. Again, performance is affected because the advantageof locality is lost, but the query can still be resolved.

If, after completing a query, a node is aware that its remote referencesare outdated, it can perform a new virtual join in order to renew them.The bootstrap node from the remote cluster can either be one of itsvalid entries or that of any other local node.

In the above embodiment, a two-level overlay network design whereobjects placement can be determined by hashing table for efficientsearch was described. However, this description did not provide aframework to determine the number of resource replicas based on resourceavailability and optimal locations of these replicas or a framework todetermine the number of resource replicas based on resource availabilityand optimal locations of these replicas using a cost model.

Moreover, this description did not consider how to index these replicasfor efficient search, which depends on the type of overlay used. Inaddition, this description did not specify a particular approach todetermine these hashed locations. Moreover, these hashed locations maynot be optimal with respect to a cost model. In fact, optimality is nota concern when using distributed hashing table.

As pointed out above, it is desirable to provide a framework that makesthe connection between the optimal placement of replicas of eachnetworked resource and the distributed hash table used in overlay designso that the replicas can efficiently be searched.

More specifically, a distributed hash table can be used to pick somenodes as index nodes for each resource. These index nodes will save thelocations of the nodes that actually store the replicas of eachresource. The up and down probabilities of these index nodes will beconsidered so that the resource availability requirement is satisfied.It is noted that CHORD is used as the underlying hash table.

In a network of devices, resource replicas could be created anddistributed in ways that satisfy the demands from each device. However,it is desirable to efficiently search for resource replicas placedstrategically in the network. Towards this end, a method links eachreplica's optimal location to each original file's hashed location sothat these replicas can be effectively searched. As a result, the up anddown probabilities of those nodes servings as links need to beconsidered in order to satisfy the resource availability requirements.

Many current peer-to-peer networks such as CAN, CHORD, Pastry andTapestry, are based on distributed hash tables, which provide adecentralized, many-to-one mapping between user objects and peers. Thismapping is accomplished by organizing the peers in some virtualcoordinate space and hashing each object to these virtual coordinates.The information about each object (such as the IP address of the owner)is kept by the peer to whose coordinates the object hashes. Theirdistributed structure, excellent scalability, short routing distances,and failure resilience make distributed hash tables highly suitable forpeer-to-peer networks.

In CHORD, every file name or node name is hashed into a CHORD ID. Eachnode will be in charge of the range of CHORD IDs between its CHORD IDand its successor's CHORD ID. Nodes are formed into a ring. Therefore,one can determine which node should be in charge of a certain file basedon that file's CHORD ID. For instance, suppose that node A has CHORD ID1000 and its successor node B has CHORD ID 2000. Therefore, if a filehas CHORD ID 1050, it will be stored in node A. Consequently, anyinquiry for this file will go to node A.

For illustration purpose, in the remaining description will use CHORD asthe underlying hash table and note that the approach is applicable usingother distributed hash tables.

To efficiently search for resource replicas placed strategically in thenetwork requires two steps. In the first step, each original file'shashed location in a cluster-based overlay is determined using hashtables. In the second part, each file replica's optimal location islinked to the hashed location of the original file.

For the first part, it is noted that in the two-level overlay design,nodes form clusters. Therefore, a distributed hash table can beconstructed, in the example of a CHORD ring, within each cluster. Eachcluster is given a name which can be hashed into a distributed hashtable key, in this example a CHORD id. Essentially, another distributedhash table is created to organize clusters, only that there is nocluster head necessary. Therefore, each node will keep two ids, one forits own and one for the cluster to which it belongs.

As a result, to store any file in this overlay, the file's CHORD ID isfirst obtained through hashing. Based on this ID, the cluster on whichthe file should be stored can be determined. After choosing the cluster,the node within that cluster to which the file would be stored can bedetermined. It is noted that the distributed hash table used to linkclusters can be different from the distributed hash table used to linknodes within each cluster. For illustration purpose, CHORD is used asthe underlying distributed hash table for both.

For example, suppose that cluster A has CHORD ID 1000 and cluster B hasCHORD ID 2000. Suppose that nodes x, y and z are in cluster A with CHORDIDs 10, 1010, 3000, respectively. Further suppose that nodes a, b and care in cluster B with CHORD IDs 33, 2043, 3053, respectively. Nowsuppose that a file with CHORD ID 1060 needs to be stored in the system.

First, it can be determined that this file needs to be stored in clusterA because its CHORD ID is in the range controlled by cluster A. Next, itis determined that node y within cluster A should store this filebecause file ID 1060 is in the range controlled by node y. After thisstep, a node is responsible for each file which can be easily foundthrough hashing. These nodes can be referred to as index nodes in thesequel.

In the second step, the replication scheme for each file is stored inthe index nodes obtained in the first step. To do this, for each file,some number of index nodes is selected. How to determine this numberlater will be explained later.

Each of these index nodes will store locations of the nodes thatactually store the file. For instance, if file k has three replicas k1,k2, and k3 stored on nodes n1, n2, and n3, respectively, an index nodeof file k will contain the locations (e.g. IP addresses) of nodes n1,n2, and n3. This way, if one inquiry comes to an index node, it can bedirected to n1, n2, or n3 depending which node is up. However, if thereis only one index node, this node will become the single point offailure, which defeats the whole purpose of having multiple replicas.Therefore, multiple index nodes should be utilized, each of whichcontains the optimal locations of nodes that actually store thereplicas.

Next, a procedure to determine the number of index nodes needed and howto locate these index nodes will be explained. To do this, realizingthat the nodes chosen to be the index nodes for file k also have up anddown probability, these probabilities are used to determine the numberof index nodes. Without loss of generality, it is assumed, for thepurposes of this explanation, that all nodes have equal up and downprobability.

It is noted that the file availability approach chooses n_(k) copies offile k to be stored in the system such that the availability of file kis greater than or equal to the required file availability specified byuser, denoted by AVA_(k). Therefore, the availability of file k can bewritten as

$ {{1 - q^{n_{k}}} \geq {AVA}_{k}}\Rightarrow{n_{k} \geq \lceil \frac{\ln( {1 - {AVA}_{k}} )}{\ln\; q} \rceil} $where q=1−p with p being the node's up probability.

Since each index node contains locations of all nodes that storereplicas for a file, it follows that if any index node is up, theavailability of file k will be (1−q^(n) ^(k) ). However, an index nodealso has an up probability of p. It follows, from these probabilitiesthat with m_(k) being the number of index nodes for file k, that theavailability of file k is given by (1−q^(m) ^(k) )(1−q^(n) ^(k) ).

Therefore, to satisfy the user required file availability AVA_(k), theavailability of file k is defined as (1−q^(m) ^(k) (1−q^(n) ^(k))≧AVA_(k). Since n_(k) has already been determined, that value can besubstituted in the above equation to determine m_(k).

After determining the number of index nodes, how to select these indexnodes using distributed hash tables needs to be determined. Again, thereare many ways to select these index nodes using distributed hash tables,the following discussion will focus on a single approach as an example.

Under CHORD structure, one simple way to choose the index nodes is thefollowing. It is noted that each original file's hashed location in acluster-based overlay using distributed hash tables has already beendetermined. The node responsible for this location is the first indexnode. Its 1-hop, 2-hop to m_(k)-hop successor in the CHORD ring thenbecomes the second, the third to the m_(k) ^(th) index node. For otherdistributed hash tables, there are also unique ways to determine m_(k)neighbors/successors of any node.

It is noted that, in this example, the index nodes were chosen to be inthe same cluster because communication overhead within a cluster isusually much less than that between clusters. Therefore, when an inquiryfor file arrives at one index node but finds that node is down, theinquiry does not have to go out of that cluster. The inquiry will simplybe routed to the next index node within the same cluster.

To summarize, the first index node for file k is determined throughdistributed hash tables. Next, the number of index nodes m_(k) needed inorder to satisfy the file availability requirements is determined. Thenm_(k)−1 number of neighbors/successors of the first index node withinthe same cluster is selected to be the remaining index nodes. Inaddition, each index node will store optimal locations of all replicasfor file k. FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart of this process.

As illustrated in FIG. 4, step S10 identifies a file k with availabilityrequirement R. Step S20 obtains a distributed hash table key for file kin parallel to step S40 determining n_(k), the number of replicas forfile k and their optimal locations. Step S30 determines Index node 1 forfile k, and step S50 determines m_(k), the number of index nodes forfile k. Step S60 chooses the remaining m_(k)−1 index nodes among thesuccessor/neighbors of the first index node. At step S70, in each indexnode, the optimal locations of all replicas of file k are stored.

The following will be a discussion of a comparison of average searchlatency. For this discussion, CHORD will be utilized as the underlyingstructure for the comparison between the average search latency underthe above-described hashing scheme and that of a conventional one-levelCHORD.

For illustration purpose, it is noted that each cluster has same numberof nodes, denoted by n, and that there are K clusters. Therefore, thetotal number of nodes, denoted by N, is equal to nK. Further, it isnoted, for this discussion, that the (average) communication latencybetween nodes in the same cluster is t, and the (average) communicationlatency between nodes in different clusters is T. It is also noted, forthis discussion, that the communication cost between nodes in the samecluster is negligible compared with that between nodes in differentclusters, i.e., t<<T.

It is noted, for this discussion, that a standard CHORD constructionorganizes all nodes into a CHORD ring. A file is associated with a CHORDID and stored in a unique node responsible for that CHORD ID.

It is known that in CHORD, the number of neighbors per node is on theorder of log N=log n+log K. The probability of two nodes in theabove-described hashing scheme CHORD overlay are in the same cluster,denoted by P_(sc), is P_(sc)=(n−1)/(nK−1)≈1/K.

It is noted that if two nodes are in the same cluster, the searchlatency between them will be t, otherwise the latency will be T. Itfollows from this and the equation for P_(sc) that the average latencybetween two nodes in an one-level Chord is (1/K)t+(1−1/K)T. Since theaverage number of hops to locate a file is also known to be on the orderof log N, it follows from this that the average search latency, denotedby L₁, is L₁=log N*[(1/K)t+(1−1/K)T]=[log(n)+logK][*(1/K)t+(1−1/K)T]=log(n)[t/k+(k−1)T/k]+log K[t/k+(k−1)T/k]. Sincet<<T, the equation reduces to L₁=log(n)[(k−1)T/k]+log K[(k−1)T/k].

As discussed above, the distributed hash tables used to link clusterscan be different from the distributed hash tables used to link nodeswithin each cluster.

For illustration purpose, CHORD has been used as the underlyingdistributed hash tables for both. In this illustration, each node has atwo-field ID. The first field of the ID of a node indicates its cluster;the second field of the ID represents itself. Nodes within the samecluster form a local Chord using their second-field IDs. The clustersform a CHORD ring based on cluster IDs.

When storing a file, the file is initially hashed to the designatedcluster; then within the designated cluster the file is hashed to thedesignated node (the hashed node for the file). Then the file is storedin this hashed node. Therefore, when an inquiry for a particular filearrives, it will first be forwarded between clusters to get to the rightcluster. The average cluster hop is then given by log(K) since clustersare organized into a CHORD structure. Once the inquiry is directed tothe right cluster, it will take another log(n) node hop on average tofind the right node. As pointed out above, the communication latencybetween nodes in the same cluster is t, and the (average) communicationlatency between nodes in different clusters is T, it follows from thesethat the average search latency, denoted by L₂, is L₂=log(n)*t+log K*T.Since t<<T, L₂<L₁.

In summary, a system and method to efficiently locate resource replicasin a cluster-based hierarchical peer-to-peer system has been described.The locations of replicas for each resource have also been described.The index nodes locations are determined using distributed hash tables.The number of index nodes is determined based on resource availabilityrequirement. Each index node saves the locations of all replicas of aresource. As a result, the replicas are placed with respect to resourcerequest rate and user can search for these replicas through index nodesefficiently by using distributed hash tables.

In this system and method, cluster ID for second level hashing are used(without needs for cluster heads), and index nodes are used to savelocations of all replicas of a resource for efficient search. The numberof index nodes is determined jointly with the number of replicas basedon resource availability requirement. Moreover, after selecting thefirst index node through distributed hash tables, the remaining indexnodes are selected within the same cluster as the first index one toreduce the search communication overhead.

It is noted that the above approach is not limited to an overlay wherecluster heads are not necessary. The approach is applicable to anycluster-based network with or without cluster heads as long as onedistributed hash tables can be constructed on the cluster level and onedistributed hash tables can be constructed within each cluster.

When a resource needs to be stored in a networked resource sharingsystem, the resource replication scheme determines (1) the number ofcopies of the resource to be stored in the system and (2) on which nodesto store the copies of the resource. In the existing approaches,however, the problems of choosing the copy numbers and selecting thenodes to store the copies are considered separately. In addition, whenselecting the ‘best’ nodes to store the resources, existing techniquesdo not consider that the nodes may be down in the future (due to poweroutage, network disconnection, etc.), while a practical model shouldtake this into account.

Therefore, it is desirable to provide a networked resource sharingsystem that considers node capacity constraint and node up/downstatistics, resource storage and transfer costs among the nodes, userrequest rates for the resources, and user (or system) specified resourceavailability requirements. Moreover, it is desirable to provide asystematic method for designing resource replication schemes wherein thescheme first chooses the copy numbers of the resources to be stored inthe system to achieve different goals (e.g., satisfy resourceavailability requirements, or maximize the system hit probability), andthen the scheme selects the nodes to store the copies of the resourcesby minimizing the total storage and expected transfer cost which takesaccount of node up/down statistics.

There are numerous instances of a networked resource sharing system. Theresources can be electronic files, physical materials, or even specificservices (e.g., copying or printing service). In the discussion below,electronic files are used as the example of resources, and the system isessentially a networked file storage system.

A networked file storage system can provide backup service for importantfiles. By storing multiply copies of a file in several nodes possibly atdifferent locations, it can improve the availability of the file in caseof fault, failure, or disaster. It can also provide load balancing andreduce access latency if the file is accessed by a large population ofgeographically distributed users.

As another example, a networked file storage system can provide contentdelivery service to content providers as well as content consumers bystoring popular files (e.g., Web pages, multimedia objects) in thesystem. By serving the user requests using the nodes that are close tothe users, it can reduce the load of the origin content servers, savenetwork bandwidth, and also provide better quality of service to theusers.

The file replication scheme is a component for a networked file storagesystem. It determines the number of copies of each file to be stored aswell as the nodes to store these copies in order to achieve differentsystem objectives. As noted above, in the existing approaches, theproblems of choosing the copy numbers and selecting the nodes to storethe copies are considered separately. In addition, when selecting the‘best’ nodes to store the files, existing techniques do not considerthat the nodes may be down in the future (due to power outage, networkdisconnection, etc.), while a practical model should take this intoaccount.

For the purposes of the discussion below, the system consists of N nodes(e.g., computers or multi-functional devices). Node i has a storagecapacity S_(i) (if there is no node capacity constraint, S_(i) is set tobe ∞). Moreover, the nodes can be organized in many different ways. Forexample, the nodes can be organized by a central server, or can beorganized as a complete graph (i.e., each node is logically connected toevery other node). More efficiently, the nodes can be organized using adistributed hashing table.

A node is up in the system with probability p, and is down withprobability q=1−p. There are M files to be stored in the system. Thesize of file k is b_(k). A user accesses the system via its local node(e.g., the node that is closest to the user).

Furthermore, for the purposes of the discussion below, let r(j, k)denote the user request rate (requests per unit time) initiated fromnode j for file k wherein r(j, k) is assumed known and remainsstationary. Also, let X_(k)=(x(i, k): 1≦i≦N) denote the replicationscheme for file k, where x(i, k) takes value 1 if the system stores acopy of file k at node i, and takes value 0 otherwise. Let A_(k)={i:x(i, k)=1} denote the set of nodes with a copy of file k under schemeX_(k). Let X=(x(i, k): 1≦i≦N, 1≦k≦M) denote the replication scheme forall files at all nodes.

In this system, the file replication scheme is made known to all nodesusing a certain index service. For example, the file replicationinformation can be stored in a central directory server, or in everynode. More efficiently, the file replication information can be storedand distributed using a distributed hashing table. Also, it is assumedthe index service is reliable, i.e., the index service alwayssuccessfully returns X_(k) (i.e., A_(k)) to any node querying for filek.

The storage cost of storing a copy of file k at node I is c(i, k). Thecost may include a one-time storage cost, and may also include futureupdate cost for updating this copy of file k at node i. Also, thetransfer cost of sending a copy of file k form node i to node j is d(i,j, k). For example, the transfer cost can be the transmission delay oftransferring file k from node i to node j.

D_(k) is the miss cost of file k if a request for file k cannot besatisfied by an up node in the system. For example, D_(k) can be thetransfer cost of getting the file from the origin server outside thesystem. In addition, let C(j, k; A_(k)) denote the expected cost ofserving a user request initiated from node j for file k. It depends onthe locations of the copies of file k (i.e., A_(k)), and also depends onthe specific user request serving strategy.

Given the parameters above, it is noted that |A_(k)|=n_(k); i.e., n_(k)copies of file k are stored in the system. Based upon this parameter,three strategies to serve a user request initiated from node j for filek and calculate the corresponding expected cost are described below.

The first strategy randomly select one of the up nodes in A_(k) (i.e.,nodes with a copy of file k) to serve the request. With probability1−q^(nk), at least one node in A_(k) is up, and the request will beserved by an up node with a copy of file k. By random selection, eachnode in A_(k) has the same chance to serve the request. With probabilityq^(nk), all n_(k) nodes in A_(k) are down, and a miss cost of D_(k) willbe induced. Hence the expected cost is

${C( {j,{k;A_{k}}} )} = {{\frac{1 - q^{n_{k}}}{n_{k}}{\sum\limits_{i \in A_{k}}\;{d( {i,j,k} )}}} + {q^{n_{k}}{D_{k}.}}}$

The second strategy first selects the node i* with the minimum transfercost d(i, j, k) among all nodes in A_(k) to serve the request. If nodei* is down, the second strategy randomly selects one of the up nodes inA_(k) to serve the request. With probability p, node i* is up and willserve the request with the minimum transfer cost. With probability1−p−q^(nk)=q−q^(nk), the request will be served by an up node in A_(k)different from i*, and each with the same chance by random selection.Finally with probability q^(nk), all n_(k) nodes in A_(k) are down and amiss cost of D_(k) will be induced. Hence the expected cost is

${C( {j,{k;A_{k}}} )} = {{p\;{\min\limits_{i \in A_{k}}{d( {i,j,k} )}}} + {\frac{q - q^{n_{k}}}{n_{k} - 1}{\sum\limits_{{i \in A_{k}},{i \neq i^{*}}}\;{d( {i,j,k} )}}} + {q^{n_{k}}{D_{k}.}}}$

The third strategy selects the node with the minimum transfer cost d(i,j, k) among all up nodes in A_(k) to serve the request. The thirdstrategy ranks the nodes in A_(k) such that d(i₁, j, k)≦d(i₂, j, k)≦ . .. ≦d(i_(nk), j, k). With probability p, node i₁ is up and will serve therequest with the minimum transfer cost. With probability q*p, node i₁ isdown but node i₂ is up and will serve the request with the secondminimum transfer cost. Finally with probability q^(nk), all n_(k) nodesin A_(k) are down and a miss cost of D_(k) will be induced. Hence theexpected cost

${{is}\mspace{14mu}{C( {j,{k;A_{k}}} )}} = {{p\;{\underset{i \in A_{k}}{\min_{1}}{d( {i,j,k} )}}} + {{q \cdot p}\;{\underset{i \in A_{k}}{\min_{2}}{d( {i,j,k} )}}} + \ldots + {q^{n_{k} - 1}p\;{\underset{i \in A_{k}}{\min_{n_{k}}}{d( {i,j,k} )}}} + {q^{n_{k}}D_{k}}}$where min_(i) denotes the i^(th) minimum term among the terms underconsideration.

It is noted that under the same replication scheme X_(k), the thirdstrategy yields the lowest expected cost, and the first strategy yieldsthe highest expected cost among the three strategies. On the other hand,the implementation complexity of the third strategy is the highest andthe implementation complexity of the first strategy is the lowest. Thesecond strategy makes a tradeoff between the first strategy and thethird strategy.

The following will be a discussion of a method for designing filereplication schemes. First, the number of copies of the files to bestored in the system is determined. This determination can be realizedby two approaches.

The first approach for determining the number of copies of the files tobe stored in the system is based upon file availability. Theavailability of a file is defined as the probability that a request forthe file can be satisfied by an up node in the system. The fileavailability approach chooses n_(k) copies of file k to be stored in thesystem such that the availability of file k is greater than or equal toa certain threshold AVA_(k) wherein

$ {{1 - q^{n_{k}}} \geq {AVA}_{k}}\Rightarrow{n_{k} \geq {\lceil \frac{\ln( {1 - {AVA}_{k}} )}{\ln\; q} \rceil.}} $

The file availability approach only requires the information of nodeup/down statistics, and user specified (or system specified) fileavailability requirements. It can be calculated for different filesindependently, which is desirable if the system has no completeinformation of all files, and the files are stored into the systemdynamically.

The second approach for determining the number of copies of the files tobe stored in the system is based upon a system hit rate approach. Thehit rate of a system is defined as the probability that a request forany file can be satisfied by an up node in the system. The system hitrate approach chooses n_(k) copies of file k to be stored in the systemsuch that the hit rate of the system is maximized. Thus, letr_(k)=Σ_(j)r(j, k)/Σ_(k)Σ_(j)r(j, k) denote the probability that anincoming request is for file k so that the following optimizationproblem is realized:

${\max\mspace{14mu}{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{M}\;{r_{k}( {1 - q^{n_{k}}} )}}} \equiv {1 - {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{M}\;{r_{k}q^{n_{k}}}}}$${s.t.\mspace{14mu}{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{M}\;{b_{k}n_{k}}}} \leq S$

where S=Σ_(i)S_(i) is the total node storage capacity.

It is noted that the optimization problem does not consider individualnode capacity constraint, so the solution of the optimization problemprovides an upper bound of the system hit rate. This optimizationproblem can be solved exactly using dynamic programming, or can besolved approximately by first relaxing the integer requirement of n_(k)and then rounding it to an integer.

The system hit rate approach requires more information than the fileavailability approach does, including node up/down statistics, therequest probabilities for all files, the sizes of all files, and thetotal node storage capacity. Hence the system hit rate approach can beutilized when the system has complete information of all files, and thefiles to be stored remain static.

After the number of copies of the files to be stored in the system isdetermined, the nodes to store the copies of the files are selected.Given that the system decides to store n_(k) copies of file k, for allfiles, the cost minimization problem then is to select n_(k) nodes, eachof which stores a copy of file k, for all files, such that the total(storage, transfer) cost is minimized, under the node storage capacityconstraints. The optimization problem can be described as the followinginteger programming problem:

${\min{\underset{k = 1}{\overset{M}{\mspace{11mu}\sum}}\;{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\;{{c( {i,k} )}{x( {i,k} )}}}}} + {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{N}\;{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}\;{{r( {j,k} )}{C( {j,{k;A_{k}}} )}}}}$${{s.t.\mspace{14mu}{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\;{x( {i,k} )}}} = {{n_{k}\mspace{45mu} k} = 1}},\ldots\mspace{11mu},{M;}$${{{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{M}\;{b_{k}{x( {i,k} )}}} \leq {S_{i}\mspace{70mu} i}} = 1},\ldots\mspace{11mu},{N;}$x(i, k) ∈ {0, 1}.

In the objective function, the first term includes the storage costs: ifthe system stores a copy of file k at node i, i.e., if x(i, k)=1, a costof c(i, k) is induced. The second term includes the expected transfercosts: if there is a request from node j for file k, an expected cost ofC(j, k; A_(k)) is induced, based on the employed request servingstrategy discussed above.

It is noted that in the objective function, the expected cost C(j, k;A_(k)) is used, which takes account of node up/down statistics. Theabove optimization problem is a complex combinatorial optimizationproblem. Even for M=1 (one file), the problem is a variant of the wellknown Minimum K-Median problem, which is known to be NP-hard. Instead ofsolving the above optimization problem exactly, two approaches will bedescribed below as an alternative to solving the above optimizationproblem exactly. The first approach is a random scheme, and the secondapproach is a greedy scheme. These approaches are used to find thelocations of the copies of the files.

In each of these approaches, let r(k)=Σ_(j)r(j, k) denote the total userrequest rate for file k from all nodes. The files are ranked accordingto their total request rates such that r(1)≧r(2)≧ . . . ≧r(M), and thefiles are stored with respect to their request rates in a descendingorder. However, it is noted that the files may enter the systemdynamically, and a file with lower request rate may enter the systemfirst. In this case, the least frequently used file replacement schemecan be implemented at every node (when a node wants to store a new filebut its storage space is full, the node will delete the file which isrequested least frequently in the past to save space to store the newfile) to mimic the ranking and storing procedure.

In the random scheme approach, for file k, 1≦k≦M, the approach randomlyselects n_(k) nodes to store file k. The algorithm terminates when allcopies of the files are stored in the system, or when all nodes are fullof capacity. The random scheme assumes minimum information of the filesand the costs, which is desirable if complete information is notavailable. The computational complexity of the random scheme is O(M· n)where n is the average value of n_(k).

In the greedy scheme approach, for file k, 1≦k≦M, and for n=1, 2, . . ., n_(k), given nodes i₁, i₂, . . . , i_(n-1) have a copy of file k, findthe best node i_(n) among the other nodes to store a copy of file k suchthat the cost c(i_(n), k)+Σ_(j)r(j, k)C(j, k; {i₁, i₂, . . . i_(n)}) isminimized. The algorithm terminates when all copies of the files arestored in the system, or when all nodes are full of capacity. The greedyscheme requires information of user request rates for files, the storagecost of every node, and the expected transfer cost from a node toanother (i.e., information of the transfer costs and node up/downstatistics), which is desirable if such complete information isavailable. The computational complexity of the greedy scheme is O(M·n·N²·T). T is the computational complexity of evaluating the expectedtransfer cost C(j, k; A_(k)), which depends on the specific user requestserving strategy as described above. For the first and second strategiesdescribed above, T=O( n). For the third strategy described above, T=O( n²).

The following discussion will evaluate the performance of six differentfile replication schemes. The first two schemes are based only on localinformation. The other four schemes are designed based on our proposeddesign method.

The first scheme is the local popularity scheme wherein each node ranksthe files according to their local request rates; files that arerequested more frequently are more popular; the node stores the filesaccording to their popularity in a descending order up to its storagecapacity. Again, every node can implement the least frequently used filereplacement scheme to mimic the ranking and storing procedure if filesenter into the node dynamically (this is known as Caching).

The second scheme is the local hybrid scheme wherein each node allocatesa certain portion of its storage to store the most popular files basedon the local request rates, and allocates the remaining portion to storefiles randomly. The third scheme is a combination of the fileavailability and random scheme approaches wherein the system determinesthe copy number of each file using the file availability approach andselects the nodes to store the copies using the random scheme.

The fourth scheme is a combination of the system hit rate and randomscheme approaches wherein the system determines the copy number of eachfile using the system hit rate approach and selects the nodes to storethe copies using the random scheme. The fifth scheme is a combination ofthe file availability and greedy scheme approaches wherein the systemdetermines the copy number of each file using the file availabilityapproach and selects the nodes to store the copies using the greedyscheme. The last scheme is a combination of the system hit rate andgreedy scheme approaches wherein the system determines the copy numberof each file using the system hit rate approach and selects the nodes tostore the copies using the greedy scheme.

In these evaluations, the system consists of N=50 nodes, and there areM=5,000 files. The size of each file is chosen at random uniformly amongintegers in [1, 10]. Let B=Σ_(k) b_(k) be the total file size. Let S=F*Bbe the total node storage capacity, where F is the ratio between thetotal node storage capacity and total file size. The storage capacity,S_(i), of node i is set to be S/N. The (normalized) user request rate(for all files) at node j, r(j), is selected at random uniformly in[0,1]. It is assumed that file popularity follows a Zipfiandistribution, i.e., r(j, k)∝r(j)/k^(α), which is widely observed in webserver and caching systems. In the evaluations, α is set to be 0.75. Thestorage cost c(i, k) is set to be 0. The transfer cost d(i, j, k) equalsd(i, j)·b_(k), which is proportional to the network distance betweennode i and node j, d(i, j), and the file size b_(k). d(i, j) is chosenat random uniformly among integers in [1, 10]. The miss cost D_(k) isset to be 10b_(k). When the file availability approach is used todetermine the copy numbers of the files, the availability threshold isset to be 0.99.

The results for p=0.5 (i.e., each node is up in the system in half ofthe time) and user request serving the third strategy, as describedabove, are shown in FIGS. 5 and 6. In both FIGS. 5 and 6, the x-axisdenotes the ratio between the total node storage capacity and the totalfile size. A ratio of three means that the system can store (at most)three copies of each file, and a ratio less than one means that thesystem cannot store all files in the system.

In FIG. 5, the system hit rate of the different replication schemes isshown. The local popularity scheme has the lowest system hit ratebecause all the nodes store the same popular files so that they cannotget files from each other. For the local hybrid scheme, each nodeallocates half of its storage space to store local popular files, andthe other half of its storage space to store files randomly. This simplemodification greatly increases the system hit rate. The four otherschemes achieve higher system hit rate than the two local based schemes.If the system hit rate approach is used to determine the copy numbers ofthe files, the system hit rate is the highest, and it does not matterwhich scheme (random or greedy) is applied to choose the locations ofthe copies, because the copy numbers of all files solely determine thesystem hit rate.

In FIG. 6, the cost of the different replication schemes is shown. Thecost of the local popularity scheme is normalized to be 1, and the costsof other schemes are also normalized according to the local popularityscheme so that percentage improvements are clearly shown. Again, thelocal popularity scheme results in the highest cost since its system hitrate is very low and this introduces a large miss cost. The local hybridscheme reduces the cost significantly. Among the four other schemes, forcopy number selection, the system hit rate approach is better than thefile availability approach in terms of cost saving; for locationselection, the greedy scheme is better than the random scheme in termsof cost saving. However, the better cost saving is due to moreinformation required and more implementation/computational complexityinduced by the system hit rate approach and the greedy scheme.

It is desirable to design and implement a file replication scheme forthe system based on the available information, the desired level ofimplementation/computational complexity, and the desired level of systemperformance (system hit rate and total cost).

The following discussion is an extension to heterogeneous node up/downprobabilities. To extend the method to handle heterogeneous node up/downprobabilities, it is assumed that node i is up with probability p_(i),and is down with probability q_(i)=1−p_(i).

For the combination of the file availability and random schemeapproaches, the combination works as follows. For file k, 1≦k≦M, (1)randomly select one node i₁ to store the first copy of file k, theavailability of file k now being P_(i1), and (2) randomly select anothernode i₂ (different from i₁) to store the second copy of file k, theavailability of file k now being 1−q_(i1)q_(i2). The process is repeateduntil the availability requirement of file k is satisfied, or until allnodes are full.

For the combination of the file availability and greedy schemeapproaches, the combination works as follows. For file k, 1≦k≦M, (1)first select the best node i₁ that minimizes the expected cost c(i₁,k)+Σ_(j)r(j, k)C(j, k; {i₁}) to store the first copy of file k, theavailability of file k now being P_(i1), and (2) given node i₁ has acopy of file k, find the best node i₂ among the other nodes to store thesecond copy of file k such that c(i₂, k)+Σ_(j)r(j, k)C(j, k; {i₁, i₂})is minimized, the availability of file k now being 1−q_(i1)q_(i2). Theprocess is repeated until the availability requirement of file k issatisfied, or until all nodes are full.

In summary, the above approaches consider node capacity constraint andnode up/down statistics, resource storage and transfer costs among thenodes, user request rates for resources, and user (or system) specifiedresource availability requirements; make use of information about nodecapacity constraint and node up/down statistics, user (or system)specified resource availability requirements or user request rates forresources to determine the number of copies of the resources to bestored in the system; and make use of information about node capacityconstraint and node up/down statistics, user request rates forresources, and resource storage and transfer costs among the nodes toselect the nodes to store the copies of the resources.

A peer-to-peer file storage network consists of peer nodes (computers,devices, etc.) that wish to share their storage and store filescooperatively to increase their own utilities or provide certainservices (e.g., document backup, content delivery, etc.) to the users.Above, a method for designing file replication schemes in a generalnetworked file storage system has been discussed. However, severalimplementation issues remain unspecified, e.g., how to logically connectthe nodes and how to distribute the file replication information to thequerying nodes in an efficient way, and most importantly, how toimplement the file replication scheme in a distributed and adaptivemanner that can scale to a large number of nodes and files and canhandle cases when user request pattern changes over time.

Below, a method to implement the file replication schemes for apeer-to-peer file storage network will be discussed. The nodes areorganized using a distributed hashing table and form a peer-to-peeroverlay network. The index service provided by the distributed hashtables will be used to distribute the file replication information tothe nodes that have user requests for a file. The index node (or a setof index nodes) for a given file will also take responsibility forcollecting the required information (such as user request rates, storagecost and communication costs among the nodes) to make the copy numberand location decisions for that file to satisfy the file availabilityrequirement and minimize the total storage and expected transfer cost.

In this example, the nodes form a peer-to-peer overlay network. Manyconventional peer-to-peer networks such as CAN, CHORD, are based ondistributed hash tables. Distributed hash tables provide adecentralized, many-to-one mapping between user objects (e.g., files)and nodes in the network. This mapping is accomplished by organizing thenodes in some virtual coordinate space and hashing each object to thesevirtual coordinates. The information about an object (such as thelocation of the object) is kept by a node that is in charge of theobject (the index node for that object) determined by the mapping. Theirdistributed structure, excellent scalability, short search hops, andfailure resilience make distributed hash tables highly suitable forpeer-to-peer networks.

Moreover, in this explanation, the system consists of N nodes whereinnode i has a storage capacity S_(i). The nodes are organized using adistributed hash tables and form a structured overlay network. In CHORD,every node is assigned an ID (e.g., based on the IP address of thenode), and the nodes form a logical ring based on their IDs. Each nodemaintains a neighbor list (called the finger table) that includes O(logN) number of neighbors on the logical ring. A node is up in the systemwith probability p_(i), and is down with probability q_(i)=1−p_(i). Auser accesses the system via its local node (e.g., the node that isclosest to the user), and r(j, k) is the user request rate initiatedfrom node j for file k. For this example, let X_(k)=(x(i, k): 1≦i≦N)denote the replication scheme for file k, where x(i, k) takes value 1 ifnode i has a copy of file k, and takes value 0 otherwise, and letA_(k)={i: x(i, k)=1} denote the set of nodes with a copy of file k underscheme X_(k).

The index service provided by the distributed hash tables is used tostore and distribute the file replication information to the nodes. Eachfile k is also assigned an ID (e.g., based on the file name), and thefile is mapped to one node (or a group of nodes) based on the ID of thefile and the nodes. These node(s) are called the index node (set) forfile k, denoted by I(k) wherein I(k) will store the replicationinformation A_(k) for file k. When a node requests for file k, it willfirst locate the index node I(k) for file k using the distributed hashtables. The querying node then will contact I(k) for A_(k). It is notedthat α_(k) is the probability that the index service successfullyreturns A_(k) to the querying node. For example, if I(k) a single node,since it will be down with probability p_(I(k)), α_(k)=p_(I(k)). If I(k)is a set of nodes, α_(k) equals one minus the probability that all nodesin I_(k) are down.

The storage cost of storing a copy of file k at node i is c(i, k), andd(i, j, k) is the transfer cost of sending a copy of file k form node ito node j wherein d(i, j, k) is proportional to the network distanced(i, j) (e.g., number of hops, transmission delay) between the two nodesand the size of file k). It is further noted that D_(k) is the miss costof file k if a request for file k cannot be satisfied by an up node inthe system, and C(j, k; A_(k)) is the expected cost of serving a userrequest initiated from node j for file k.

A method to implement a distributed and adaptive file replication schemewill be discussed below. In this method, for file k, the index node I(k)is used to collect the information and to make the replication decisionfor file k (for simplicity, it is assumed that there is a single indexnode I(k) for file k, but the method can be extended to a set of indexnodes for file k as well).

When a file k first enters into the system, it is assumed that thesystem has no prior information of the user request rates for that file.The index node for file k, I(k), will apply the file availability-randomscheme approach to make the file copy number and location decisions. Inthis approach, I(k) randomly selects one node i₁ in its neighbor list tostore the first copy of file k, the availability of file k now beingα_(k)p_(i1) since the file is available to a querying node if and onlyif both the index service successfully returns node i₁ to the queryingnode and node i₁ is up. Thereafter, I(k) randomly selects another node(different from i₁) in its neighbor list to store the second copy offile k, the availability of file k now being α_(k)(1−q_(i1)q_(i2)),since the file is not available to a querying node if and only if bothnode i₁ and node i₂ are down. The process is repeated until theavailability requirement of file k is satisfied.

If I(k) does not have enough number of neighbors to store all the copiesof file k, I(k) can consider its two (or more)-hop neighbors (i.e., theneighbors of the neighbor of I(k)). I(k) will maintain the list of nodesthat stores a copy of file k (i.e., A_(k)).

When a user from node j requests file k, node j can locate the indexnode I(k) for file k using the distributed hash tables. If I(k) is up,it will return the replication information A_(k) for file k to node j.Node j then uses a user request serving strategy to select one node inA_(k) to serve the user request, as described above.

Since all user requests for file k are directed to I(k), I(k) cancollect the user request statistics from all nodes that have requestedfile k. I(k) maintains a list of nodes U_(k) that have requested file k,and measures the request rate r(j, k) for each node j in U_(k). I(k)also collects the node up/down statistics, the storage cost and transfercost information from the nodes in U_(k). Note that the system couldhave a large number of (e.g., thousands of) nodes, but U_(k) (the set ofnodes that have user requests for file k) may be only a small subset ofthe total nodes.

After I(k) has collected sufficient statistics, it will apply the fileavailability-greedy scheme, as described above, to make the file copynumber and location decisions. In this approach, I(k) first selects thebest node i₁ in U_(k) that minimizes the expected costc(i₁,k)+Σ_(j)r(j,k)C(j,k; {i₁}) to store the first copy of file k, theavailability of file k now being α_(k)p_(i1). Thereafter, given node i₁has a copy of file k, I(k) selects the best node i₂ among the othernodes in U_(k) to store the second copy of file k such that C(i₂,k)+Σ_(j)r(j, k)C(j, k; {i₁, i₂}) is minimized, the availability of filek now being α_(k)(1−q_(i1)q_(i2)). The process is repeated until theavailability requirement of file k is satisfied. The copies of file koriginally stored at nodes selected by the file availability-randomscheme will now be migrated to the newly selected nodes, and I(k) againwill maintain the new list of nodes with of a copy of file k.

Since all user request are directed to I(k), I(k) can naturally keepcollecting and updating the user request statistics. If user requestpattern changes (or network condition changes which will affect thetransfer costs among the nodes), I(k) will initiate file migration againwhen necessarily (e.g., if cost saving after file migration exceeds acertain threshold).

In summary, a system and method implements the file replication schemein a distributed and adaptive manner for a peer-to-peer file storagenetwork. This approach can handle a large number of nodes, the nodesbeing organized using a distributed hash tables, which providesdistributed and scalable node management and search services. Inaddition, a hierarchical distributed hash tables (e.g., a two-levelChord) can be implemented if the system consists of a large number ofgeographically distributed nodes.

The approach also can handle a large number of files, using the indexnode (or a set of index nodes) for each file to collect the requiredinformation (such as user request rates, storage and transfer costsamong the nodes that have user requests for the file) and making filereplication/migration decisions. Since files are assigned to differentindex nodes uniformly via the distributed hash tables, the informationcollecting and file replication/migration decision making load is evenlydistributed among the index nodes (and essentially among all nodes inthe system if every node can provide index service). In addition, fileswith similar properties (e.g., user request statistics) can beaggregated into a super file to reduce the actual number of files thesystem needs to consider. Lastly, the approach can handle user requestpattern changes (or network condition changes which affect the transfercosts among the nodes) through file migration.

It is noted that a network overlay, according to the various conceptsdescribed above, may include a logical network structure of nodes, anordering of the nodes being defined. The logical network structure mayinclude a first cluster of nodes. Each node within the first clustercontains a link to a previous node in the first cluster and a link to asuccessor node in the first cluster. A node within the first clustercontains a virtual link to a node in a second cluster of nodes.

The virtual link may include a link to a predecessor node selected fromthe nodes of the second cluster or may include a link to a successornode selected from the nodes of said second cluster. The logical networkstructure of nodes may include a plurality of clusters, the plurality ofclusters being ordered. Moreover, each node may contain an identifierfor itself and an identified for its cluster.

Each node and cluster ordering may be based upon their respectiveidentifiers. A node may contain a virtual link to a previous cluster anda virtual link to a successor cluster. A node may contain a virtual linkfor a cluster at a different level. A node may contain a virtual linkfor a previous cluster at a first level and a virtual link for aprevious cluster at a second level.

The logical network structure of nodes may include multiple levels ofclusters. The multiple levels of clusters may be ordered. The firstlevel and the second level may be different. The logical networkstructure of nodes may include a single level of clusters. Theclustering of nodes may be based upon a locality metric.

It is noted that a resource storage and retrieval method stores morethan one instance of a resource within a peer-to-peer network; storeslocations of the stored instances of the resource in a first index node;stores locations of the stored instances of the resource in a secondindex node; and stores one instance of the resource at an optimallocation within the peer-to-peer network.

A number of stored resource instances may be dependent upon an upprobability of nodes within the peer-to-peer network. A number of indexnodes storing the locations of the stored instances of the resource maybe dependent upon an up probability of nodes within the peer-to-peernetwork.

The peer-to-peer network may include a cluster of nodes. The first indexnode may be located in a same cluster of nodes as one instance of thestored resource. The first index node may be located in accordance witha hash table and/or in accordance with hashing a name of the resource.The first index node and the second index node may be successivelyordered nodes within a cluster.

A method, according to the various concepts described above, fordetermining the storage locations in a network for copies of a resourcemay determine a number of copies of the resource to be stored and selectwhich nodes of the network should store a copy of the resource whereinthe determining and selecting is based upon a probability that a nodewill be down. The determining and selecting may also be based upon acapacity of nodes to store the resources, a storage cost, a transfercost, and/or an expected request rate for a resource.

The determining of the number of copies may be based upon calculatingthe sufficient number of copies to meet a predefined probability that arequest for a resource can be satisfied and/or maximizing a hit rate ofthe system

The selecting of nodes may be based upon a minimization of the storageand transfer costs. The selecting of nodes may be applied to resourcesin order of the request rates for those resources.

The selecting of nodes may be random. The selecting of nodes for storagelocations may be dynamic and adaptive. The expected request rate for aresource may be dynamically calculated by channeling a request throughan index node and collecting request statistics.

The number of copies may be determined such as to meet a predefinedprobability that a request can be satisfied when a resource first entersthe system. The nodes at which the resource is stored my be selectedrandomly when a resource first enters the system. The nodes on which theresource is stored my be recalculated so as to minimize costs when aresource request rate has be established.

A method, according to the various concepts described above, fordetermining the storage locations in a network for copies of a resourcemay determine a number of copies of the resource to be stored and selectwhich nodes of the network should store a copy of the resource whereinthe determining and selecting is based upon a probability that a nodewill be down and a cost of not satisfying a resource request. Thedetermining and selecting may also be based upon a capacity of nodes tostore the resources, a storage cost, a transfer cost, and/or an expectedrequest rate for a resource.

The determining of the number of copies may be based upon calculatingthe sufficient number of copies to meet a predefined probability that arequest for a resource can be satisfied and/or maximizing a hit rate ofthe system

The selecting of nodes may be based upon a minimization of the storageand transfer costs. The selecting of nodes may be applied to resourcesin order of the request rates for those resources.

The selecting of nodes may be random. The selecting of nodes for storagelocations may be dynamic and adaptive. The expected request rate for aresource may be dynamically calculated by channeling a request throughan index node and collecting request statistics.

The number of copies may be determined such as to meet a predefinedprobability that a request can be satisfied when a resource first entersthe system. The nodes at which the resource is stored my be selectedrandomly when a resource first enters the system. The nodes on which theresource is stored my be recalculated so as to minimize costs when aresource request rate has be established.

It will be appreciated that various of the above-disclosed embodimentsand other features and functions, or alternatives thereof, may bedesirably combined into many other different systems or applications.Also, various presently unforeseen or unanticipated alternatives,modifications, variations, or improvements therein may be subsequentlymade by those skilled in the art which are also intended to beencompassed by the following claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for determining storage locations for aresource and copies thereof, a storage location being associated with anode in a network of nodes, the network of nodes forming a system,comprising: (a) determining, when a resource first enters the system forstorage thereof, a number of copies of the resource to be stored, basedupon a probability that a node will be down, the copies of the resourceto be stored being determined copies; (b) randomly selecting, when theresource first enters the system for storage thereof, a number of nodesto store the determined copies thereon, the number of nodes being equalto the number of determined copies; (c) storing the determined copies onthe randomly selected nodes, the determined copies stored on therandomly selected nodes being stored determined copies; (d) reselecting,when a predetermined number of requests have been received for thestored resource, nodes to store the stored determined copies thereon,based upon a minimization of a storage cost; and (e) storing the storeddetermined copies on the reselected nodes, the stored determined copiesbeing the determined copies previously stored on the randomly selectednodes.
 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the storage costincludes a capacity of nodes to store the resources.
 3. The method asclaimed in claim 1, wherein said reselecting the nodes to store thestored determined copies thereon is based upon a minimization of astorage cost and a minimization of a transfer cost.
 4. The method asclaimed in claim 2, wherein said reselecting the nodes to store thestored determined copies thereon is based upon a minimization of astorage cost and a minimization of a transfer cost.
 5. The method asclaimed in claim 1, wherein said determining the number of copies isbased upon calculating the sufficient number of copies to meet apredefined probability that a request for a resource can be satisfied.6. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said determining the numberof copies is based upon maximizing a hit rate of the system.